Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
The Growing Divergence Between Horsepower and Speed Limits
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Problem with people that have common sense is that they are not going to wow the kid and set the expectation that high HP means getting crazy. Sounds like the kid is a solid citizen and with luck his kid will be the same.
Most people don't realize that what they do in a car with very young children on board is what is learned as acceptable behavior. This doesn't require high HP to be bad education. I get passed by Insight's and Prius on the Freeway all the time. Talk about conflicted ...
They both are. Dad owns a very successful business and son just graduated with his Dr. of Divinity degree. Some people horde money others spread the wealth around. I think the Corvette was a long time dream and will be treated very carefully.
You might have thought this was a Hillary Clinton type Right Wing conspiracy , when a population of hybrid owners Prius, etc reports/ed LESS than EPA ratings and by a significant amount.
So if the observation/s is true, i.e. EPA estimates and averages are indeed less ie less than 27 mpg average and less than EPA estimates, a lot of this type of discussion has been a (straw man) exercise in a building of a house of cards? So what remains is what is the REAL MPG average (for regulatory purposes of course, most folks understand the concept of a moving target)?
Seems as if overnight, diesel products, which gives app 40% better fuel mileage than like gassers, a defacto superior position on the MPG issue.
:-)
Randy
It's easy to compare *fleet* numbers of Camrys and *fleet* numbers of Corvettes and say "see, the Camrys pollute more than the Corvettes.
yay for you!
:-)
But how do you feel about the "growing divergence of HP..." ?
key word is "growing"
More and more vehicles are being pumped out with outrageous HP numbers and you know as well a I do, that they will not/do not come close to the Vettes numbers.
I'm not advocating driving around in 3 cylinder econoboxes, but I am all for a "toning down" of the HP war that is going on.
Some of us simply don't see a divergence. As has been said before by various posters:
-You don't need a powerful car to exceed the speed limit. Just about any car being sold today can do it.
-It's not a big deal if they are exceeding the current limits. The roads are getting safer, so why not increase traffic speeds if the results are positive? If people are exceeding the limits, then the problem is probably with the limits, not with the people.
-IMO, the traffic speeds are increasing not because of horsepower, but because of the other capabilities of the car such as roadholding, as well as because of improved damping and insulation that reduces the sensation of speed. You can equip the same cars with lower HP engines, and drivers would behave similarly.
Others have introduced other "issues" on this thread in order to move it toward their points of view. So far, I've seen no proof that people are driving more quickly because of greater horsepower, or proof that there is a resulting safety issue because of it.
A moving or spreading apart in different directions from a common point.
If we had a common point of reference it would be easier to determine if there is a divergence. My 1999 Suburban had a gross weight of 8000Lbs and 255 HP. I never felt it was underpowered. Now a Honda Accord Hybrid is 255 HP with a gross weight of about half the Suburban. The hybrids being the darlings of the environmental side of the country makes me think that is what we should strive for. So to bring the Suburban into line with the Accord hybrid it will need a 500 HP engine.
The Suburban IMO does not need 500 HP. It is safe to say the Accord does not need 255 HP. It looks to me like Toyota and Honda have led this HP race in the midsize sedan market. And they are the ones wanting us to believe they are "GREEN".
yay for you!
:-) "...
See Gagrices take on who are the real leaders in the HP wars!??
Except the high hp in reality is overblown and LARGELY symbolic given the real world numbers of 431k vs 34,000 K. This of course will NEVER be acknowledged despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Also who has more HP 210 hp (40% of the Camry population) and 154 hp for the rest) x 431,000 or 500 hp x 8,000? Math really sux doesn't it?
So can one get an unlimited supply of 90 hp vehicles? As in TDI's ? I dare say the low hp darling of the environmentalists indeed have more hp than 90 hp? TSK TSK. And what do you think the upgrades to the Prius will be? YUP ya got it HP!!!???
BUT WAIT!!! Why should we pay thousands more for 154 hp when the quintessential (2006) economy, commute car Honda Civic makes 140 hp!?
I agree. So then why have a 400 HP family sedan? Just so you can look cool taking little Johnny to the ball game?
It's not a big deal if they are exceeding the current limits. The roads are getting safer, so why not increase traffic speeds if the results are positive? If people are exceeding the limits, then the problem is probably with the limits, not with the people.
People alreday drive 20 mph over the limits now. Do you think if they raised them, then everybody would still drive 75-85 mph?
No, they'll still be pushing the limits of the law and now you'll have cars doing 95-105 mph on the highway.
The problem with that is there are still going to be tons (take that literally) of large trucks on the road going at a safer speed for them.
So if speeds are increased we'll either have:
A. Cars doing 100 mph and trucks doing 60 mph. A 40 mph differential between vehicles on the same road is dangerous.
or
B. Trucks traveling at 85-95 mph on the highway...and that's scary.
And for what? to save a few seconds/minutes in a persons' commute?
It just doesn't seem worth it to me.
No, they'll still be pushing the limits of the law and now you'll have cars doing 95-105 mph on the highway.
That is a common misperception. Most drivers drive based upon speeds at which they are comfortable, not based upon what is posted on a sign.
Speed limits that are excessively low get violated and are impossible to enforce without draconian measures or diversion of law enforcement away from other activities; speed limits that are reasonable are generally obeyed.
This is all covered on the lengthy speed limit thread in the archives. Not many facts provided by the go-slow crowd to support the Everyone Drives X Miles Over the Limit theory, while there are numerous studies and traffic engineers who support what I've just told you.
No, they'll still be pushing the limits of the law and now you'll have cars doing 95-105 mph on the highway.
me: My experience is that people will drive what is comfortable for them. This is mainly a function of their perceived risk. Risk is a function of the amount of traffic, the capability of their vehicle, the weather and the type of road.
My data to support this is having driven the same commuting road for the last 10 years. Depending on conditions people drive the same stretches of road anywhere from 30 to 75 mph. People adjust their driving to their "thermostat level" where they perceive risk to be acceptable (usually low).
The other reason people won't drive extremely fast for the typical person living check-to-check is financial (aerodynamics are going to hurt mpg). Also some cars are going to be very noisy at higher speeds and that is going to limit people.
Now your idea of 75-85 may be appropriate for many areas. But interstates out in the middle of nowhere might have a higher limit yet in the left-lane. So this would keep the truck (or person wishing to drive slower) at 65mph separate from the higher-speeds.
you: to save a few seconds/minutes in a persons' commute?
me: The purpose of having appropriate speed limits is twofold: 1) get police officers working on unsolved crimes or preventing murders, rapes, and armed robbery. I also think it rather dangerous for police to give high speed chase thru traffic to write a fine to a commuter. The cop may be trained to drive, but an accident only requires 1 driver to make a mistake. The 2nd reason is 2) it is not good for a society to have laws that the majority of people break. It sets a precedent that it's okay to break certain laws. We should set our laws based on what we want and do, not on our hypocritical words.
personally i drove well over 40k miles last year, about 30k in our TDI passat (40 mpg highway), and 10k in my holden monaro/GTO. the 2 years before that, 30k miles each in jetta TDI, 48 mpg. i figure all those miles in the TDI can be balanced by some tire-squealing ~20mpg driving in the GTO.
vive la mpg difference!
you get to advirtize it, although you can't really use it.
kind of watching the olympics while surfing.
saw a chevy commercial. corvette; 505 hp! :surprise:
me: I use the power of my car more often than the ABS feature of my brakes. I hardly ever have the traction control engage. I've never used the airbags in any car, but yet I still buy them; just in case I might need them. Just because you do not use features everyday, does not mean they are not useful at times.
The more situations in life you are prepared for by having more capabilities, the better off you will be.
Porsche Cayenne Turbo S - incease of 70 hp to 520.
2007 Lambo Gallardo - increase to 550hp.
Dodge Calibre (replacing Dodge Neon) - hp up to 300.
RAV4 - V6 with 268hp.
Nissan (Skyline) GTR - 450hp
Camry (4 cyl Hybrid) - about 200hp
Each manufacturer is trying to outdo the other.
If so, the Honda Insight is literally dying on the vine! (70 hp)
In fact the environmental types have almost succeeded in banning the 90 hp VW TDI.
So in fact this hp issue is both a bogus and strawman issue!!
Even though the RAV4 only has 268HP, that little SUV hardly has the frame size to support that kind of power. I wouldn't want to drop the hammer on that while going around a corner.
Good point. I bought my 99 Suburban with 4WD. I only used it once in the 7 years I owned it. We were in a freak snow storm in the Sierras. A logging truck slid across the road and the only way around him was using 4WD. I never used any of the other aforementioned, very expensive safety features.
But then, my apartment's parking lot turns into a complete sheet of ice when it snows.
And I'll definitely attest that it works really, really, really well (getting the tires that slip to regain traction).
Not a "slo mo" advocate here, nor am I directing this at any particular poster here, but why would anyone buy one simply on the grounds it had more or less horsepower? I am sure there are those consumers who do, but good grief; that is simply ignorant consumerism there. Oops.... did I just describe ~90% of the car-buying public?
Sure, informed car buyers might purchase a new model with more HP (and numerous the other features) than a previous model. But, did that buyer make the purchase primarily due to the typically modest HP increase or because the whole package best fit the current need?
HP is part of the package; isolating it dissolves its utility (which has been indirectly stated by numerous posters time and time again).
Generally speaking, HP = improved performance and responsiveness, qualities that many drivers do value and want. In isolation, it may not mean much, but as a form of automotive shorthand, it's a useful factoid.
me: I think we all agree. More power is usually bundled with other performance enhancements, which are desireable; though not all can afford them, and thus lesser choices are made.
you: simply ignorant consumerism there. Oops.... did I just describe ~90% of the car-buying public?
me: I assume you're talking about new car buyers, which is what drives what manufacturers are building. The used car buyer can own choose from what was already built, and is not going to influence the manufacturer much (if at all).
So who are the people buying new cars? I would guess their income is higher than lower. And though there are many exceptions and overlap, the higher income people are going to be better educated and/or intelligent. Thus the more successful and intelligent people are the new car buyers. So then we all must be ignorant, with only a few brilliant exceptions (like us)?
you: But, did that buyer make the purchase primarily due to the typically modest HP increase.
me: well I remember an '85 LeBaron I had that was maybe 100hp; a similar car today has 2X that power. So those modest increases have added up; like compounded interest.
In general, I want my car to be faster, safer, and travel over more terrain; I want the jet I fly on to have Mach-speed and be safer, and want my TV to project life-like 3-D holograms. I want everything to continue to get better. In fact forget about that jet; I want the sort of power (a nuclear battery?) in my vehicle - to travel on land, water, or in the air. Let's keep the advances coming.
:surprise: That is quite a leap of faith, there! If nothing else, education/intelligence/income has nothing to do with being a well-informed car buyer. It takes a bit of effort for that. Wealthier people tend to make more informed buying decisions (which is often the reason they have the wealth), but higher income often means nothing more than being able to make uninformed decisions that cost more.
I want everything to continue to get better.... Let's keep the advances coming.
Point well taken, and I agree. With today's car, HP can be an indicator of other "beefed up" qualities also packaged on the car. I do not see many auto advertisements any more, but those I do tend to tout HP and standard (or optional) safety features, so there is somewhat of a duality there that caters to what matters most to consumers. I am fine with increases in HP; every facet of autmobiles improves by leaps and bounds on an almost yearly basis (other than the ease and cost of repairing them!). I will take the increased HP if that is what is offered on my next purchase, but the whole package is what will sell the car, not a gross HP # stuck on the window.
All of that said, I certainly recognize that I am *not* the customer that drives technology. I appreciate new technology at least as much as the next person, but I also have the patience to wait for it to fit into my lifestyle rather than fitting my lifestyle into it. For example (getting back to televisions!), I have a 32" Trinitron that was manufactured back in... hmm.... 1996? I purchased it in '01, back when flatscreens were making their debut in earnest. When that set goes defunct, I will replace it with new technology (whatever that may be whenever it may be), but in the meantime it serves the exact same purpose. I could buy a new one, but it just is not that important to my lifestyle. Eh.
90hp diesel, again, is not the same animal as 385 hp gas. You almost have to get that much of a difference between them to even start comparing them directly. The benefits to diesel are so much greater than gasoline. Change scares people - it takes a lot of courage to change.
Hard to get back to what you are saying of people are not actually "BUYING IT".
The automakers are looking to create demand for the autos that have the highest profit margins.
Can advertising drive people to buy? Thankfully, not yet. But they do seem to spend money on it and would not do so if it did not work at all.
300C has plenty of power to spare and in my opinion looks as nice as the 300C. The Lincoln also has close to 40 horsepower less than the Deville but once again the Lincoln
has more than adequate power for doing things like entering freeways and two lane road passing. Not to mention that I paid between 12 and 15 thousand dollars less for the Lincoln of similar age, miles and trim level. My point is that the current competition for power stats is way over done and with the current fuel prices it may turn out that smaller engines will become even more popular. Needless to say that neither the Deville or Towncar have small engines but they are nowhere near as large or powerful as the 300C or SRT.
0-60 2.5 seconds, calculated. It's 4 wheel drive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugatti_Veyron_16.4
i enjoy the rare times when i see one on the road.
along the lines of pointless-horsepower/torque,
i saw a Jeep V8 SXT grand-cherokee a couple days ago.
I LIKE! same with VW 2-a-reg V10 TDI.
also i enjoyed the one time i saw an "international CXT" on the highway - i gave the driver a thumbs-up to contrast with that other finger he probably saw from other drivers.
at least the CXT is a diesel!
i don't think i'll ever enjoy any of these super-powered SUV/pickups enough to buy one however! i'm actually a truck-hater. trucks only interest me when they have crazy-powerful or diesel engine and/or at least 7-adult-passenger-capacity.
When I was a kid I loved VW Beetles, Roadrunners, Chargers, Vettes, Trans Ams, Mustangs, and in racing Porsches and Chapparals.
And the Viper will be a car kids love. The wind, noise, acceleration can be like a roller coaster, and most of us love roller coasters. And for adults, there is a definite advantage in driving an SRT10 over a Camry if trying to attract the opposite sex.
And I sure hope more people realize the speed limits in this country are set based on the capabilities of a 1960's garbage truck being able to negotiate the road safely. People are driving 10-20 mph over the limits regularly now and there has been no increase in fatalities per million miles driven. The only reason I see for the current speed limits is so police can collect revenue for the government, and more onerously - have a reason to pull over any car or people THEY DON"T LIKE THE LOOKS OF. Low speed limits are a great excuse for Big Brother to check you out.
You are right, and until the kids drive and pay for their own gas they have no clue. Now that my kids drive and pay for their gas, they have a totally different mindset about what is hot and what is expensive. They were even thinking about selling their SUV to get a 4 cyl car.
/ot Thankfully the police are out there collecting revenue from speeding tickets. My property taxes went down because of the additional revenue from speeding tickets. Speeders keep up the good work.
Well if the police issued tickets for tailgating/ phoning+driving / Lane discipline / alcohol / drugs+driving as frantically as for speeding, I am pretty sure your local taxes could even disappear. A little considered side effect would be a real drop of road casualties....
But what the heck : isn't it easier to collect money with a politically correct radar gun than anything else?